Back in May, a group of professionals from the social housing, construction and finance sectors met for three days at Windsor Castle to thrash out the details of a new policy now dubbed "build-to-let".

Hosted by the Building and Social Housing Foundation (BSHF) and held behind closed doors, the group of 30 put their day jobs aside for 72 hours to find an answer to this recurring question: why won't private providers invest in good quality housing for market rent?

The brainstorming began where so much debate in the sector currently breaks off, with the assumptions that: we face a housing crisis created in part because market house building for owner occupation has failed to provide the number of necessary homes; and, the demand for private rented accommodation is rising as mortgage affordability and availability forces more households out of the reach of ownership.

We need private investment as demand rises while the public tap runs dry, so how can the big players – pension funds and other large investors – be encouraged to support private rent? The result of that three-day exchange has now been published.

Build-to-let should be attractive to pension funds and others. After all, rents rise in line with (or above) earnings yielding a reliable income stream, it is less volatile than other asset classes, residential property outperforms it's commercial counterpart and as a new class it encourages diversification, which reduces risk.

The shared analysis unravelled five common concerns about build-to-let among investors:

• yield – though demonstrating a greater appreciation over time, rent returns for residential properties are lower than for commercial buildings

• scale – a strong return is only achieved once large purpose built developments are available to invest in, and many are unwilling to take on the cost and risk of the build, preferring instead to invest in an existing asset

• novelty – there is no track record in this area, making it a riskier investment

• reputation – there are still negative stereotypes associated with private rented housing, such as bad management and poor quality, that investors do not wish to be associated with

In order to mitigate against these factors, the group concluded that the largest housing associations should play their part designing and building properties specifically for market rent while finding investors to support them. "They have the balance sheet strength and housing experience to create successful portfolios of sufficient scale, which could subsequently be refinanced by bringing institutional investors into the portfolio."

To place these conclusions in context, Diane Diacon, director of BSHF, adds: "as a housing research charity, BSHF's goal is not the enrichment of investors". An important clarification, because that's exactly what these proposals will do.

Even channelled through the existing businesses of our biggest housing associations, this model requires housing professionals to invest their expertise and their organisation's income in a project that will ultimately make a profit for big investors – whatever the social aims or outcomes.

This study raises a complex question of priorities. Should we aim for a stable housing market and increased housing supply to mitigate the crisis we face at any cost?

Diacon concludes that using public money and expertise to stimulate this profit-making market is not a bad option. It will address something of the supply problem, provide greater choice and flexibility for renters and drive up standards through increased competition, she says. "In doing so, it would be contributing to BSHF's real objectives: increasing the number of people who have access to decent housing."

As the opportunities and the risks for housing association businesses grow, it is imperative that housing providers understand exactly what their own objectives are.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Join the housing network for comment, analysis and best practice